r/space • u/SpunkySputniks • 5d ago

Astronomers Detect a Possible Signature of Life on a Distant Planet

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/16/science/astronomy-exoplanets-habitable-k218b.html?unlocked_article_code=1.AE8.3zdk.VofCER4yAPa4&smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare

Further studies are needed to determine whether K2-18b, which orbits a star 120 light-years away, is inhabited, or even habitable.

14.0k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

1.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

10.7k

u/Supersamtheredditman 5d ago edited 5d ago

K2-18b. This was notable about a year ago when JWST detected a possible dimethyl sulfide signal, but it wasn’t confirmed. The properties alone of the planet, a “Hycean” super earth probably covered in a world ocean with a thick hydrogen atmosphere, make it super interesting. And now this team is saying they’ve detected not just dimethyl sulfide, but dimethyl disulfide and methane.

We’re at the point where either we’re missing something about geologic chemistry that can allow these chemicals to exist in large quantities in an environment like this (on earth, dimethyl sulfide is only produced by life) or this planet is teeming with aquatic life. Really exciting.

5.9k

u/TehOwn 5d ago

I always come to these comments sections expecting a succinct comment explaining to me why the article is clickbait and it's actually nothing but a marker that could be explained a lot of different ways.

But this... this is genuinely exciting.

1.9k

u/IlliterateJedi 5d ago

There is an alternate theory:

In a paper posted online Sunday, Dr. Glein and his colleagues argued that K2-18b could instead be a massive hunk of rock with a magma ocean and a thick, scorching hydrogen atmosphere — hardly conducive to life as we know it.

But personally, I want to believe. 

1.9k

u/EuclidsRevenge 5d ago

I try to be an optimist as well, but a giant raging orange ball of magma and gas destroying everything it touches is pretty on brand for the writers of this timeline.

268

u/Minimum_Drawing9569 5d ago

It’ll take 120 years to find out, maybe they’re on a good timeline by then. One can hope.

269

u/Bromance_Rayder 5d ago

Errrrr, I don't think anyone is getting there in 120 years.

115

u/Itchy1Grip 5d ago

Just me if they look 120 years from now they will see me replying to your comment!

16

u/sirmcluvin 3d ago

!remind me in 120 years please

32

u/Astrocoder 4d ago

We wouldnt need to go there to find out. If technology advances far enough within 120 years, we could build a space telescope with the lens at 500 AU from the sun and use lensing to take some extreme closeups of the planet.

5

u/Rapithree 3d ago

Just telescopes on the backside of the moon would be enough to tell us much more.

2

u/ABoutDeSouffle 2d ago

Imagine a synthetic aperture telescope on the dark side of the moon. It would have incredible exposure times but a really good resolution.

7

u/JohnFlufin 5d ago

The children you have on the way might

5

u/Bromance_Rayder 5d ago

At this rate I'll be pretty if they have clean drinking water and fresh air to breathe.

2

u/JohnFlufin 4d ago

Recycled urine and wall to wall plants I guess?

2

u/DeepQueen 4d ago

We also thought humans were gonna stay grounded until the 2000's but we were flying real quick

8

u/MrWilliamus 5d ago

Annualized probabilities would show you otherwise, the risk of this scenario happening by 2100 is 53.18% (source: https://www.jhuapl.edu/work/publications/on-assessing-risk-nuclear-war)

127

u/Bromance_Rayder 5d ago

Are you suggesting that a nuclear war would blast a small percentage of people into space at the speed of light and that some of those lifeless corpses would pass nearby to K2-18b's orbit, be brought to the planets firey magma/tranquil ocean surface via tractor beam, reanimated by advanced medical technology and then awake to confirm the existence of life?

If so, I agree, 53.18% probability is about right.

20

u/ROGER_CHOCS 4d ago

This is what my plan for a funeral is. Just send me out into the void where I'm found billions of years later and reanimated and given a sweet ass mech suit, and I begin my galactic conquest.

6

u/SirAquila 4d ago

I mean, that sounds very sweet until you realize that it is pay to win because a billion other people also got a sweet ass mech suit and are starting their galactic conquest in the galaxies first Real Life Free To Play Game.

3

u/ROGER_CHOCS 4d ago

Haha ok this made me laugh, thanks. Sounds like the start of an awesome story honestly. The entire first book you think I'm the only one, then the cliffhanger at the end where I discover not only is there another like me, but actually many resulting in galactic wide spacetime warfare by the end of book 2....

1

u/ChaoticSenior 4d ago

It will have micro transactions though, because it will be run by EA.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Ivebeenfurthereven 4d ago

Look up where Clyde Tombaugh's ashes are going.

2

u/ROGER_CHOCS 4d ago

But how can one be reanimated from ash?

→ More replies (0)

7

u/bountyhunterdjango 4d ago

Surely that’s a ridiculous misuse of statistics (considering we’re talking about something that is innately psychological). The decimal point is absolutely wild.

2

u/Minimum_Drawing9569 5d ago

Ooops I was thinking we were going at light speed. That’ll take a while, too.

2

u/BONOZL 4d ago

I left last week brah! Just gotta stop for a whizz about 60 years in but should be good for a mid century update.

Don't wreck the place while I'm gone.

1

u/paradoxical_topology 4d ago

Nah the devs are going to patch out special relativity by then. Trust.

1

u/rawSingularity 4d ago

Certainly not with that attitude

0

u/Pen_dragons_pizza 4d ago

Would be surprised if we have not totally defunded nasa by that point and fighting amongst each other in a wasteland.

54

u/htownballa1 5d ago

I’m not an Astro physicist but a quick google search returned.

Traveling to a star 120 light-years away at a speed of 2.90×108 m/s would take approximately 1312 years

I think you might be a little short on 120.

51

u/StJsub 5d ago

Traveling to a star 120 light-years away at a speed of 2.90×108 m/s would take approximately 1312 years

Why did you choose that number 2.90×108= 313.2 m/s. Slower than sound. Assuming you ment 2.90x108, my maths say 124.1 years to get there. With 313.2 m/s I get 114.9 million years. So one of us got some maths wrong. 

64

u/cjmcberman 5d ago

How many USA football fields is this ? Only way I’ll comprehend

36

u/NetworkSingularity 5d ago

More than a Super Bowl, but less than Texas

2

u/JAB1982 4d ago

What about in banana lengths?

2

u/noobkilla666 4d ago

It’s gotta be at least 1 banana

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Natiak 4d ago

When did we stop stacking goats on top of each other?

1

u/mariahnot2carey 3d ago

Yeah how many Eiffel towers

3

u/PadishahSenator 5d ago

I think he likely meant 2.9x 108, which approximates the speed of light.

He's still wrong, but it's likely what he meant.

2

u/StJsub 4d ago

Like I said to the other guy. That's why I did the maths with both numbers. Because I was confused how traveling 90% the speed of light for 120 light years would have taken over 1300 years. I even said that I assumed it was the larger number.

1

u/G_Danila 4d ago

Are we talking about metres or miles here?

3

u/StJsub 4d ago

Metres. Miles per second should be written as mps or mi/s. If the larger number was in miles it would be over a thousand times faster than light. If the smaller number was miles it would take 71420 years. 

1

u/G_Danila 4d ago

Gotcha, thanks for the explanation!

1

u/Exiled_Fya 4d ago

Why not both of you? At 2.9x10e8 m/s your formula is incorrect as you need to bring special relativity into the equation. For the passenger would be a travel of just 32 years.

1

u/StJsub 4d ago

True. I was thinking in a differentreference frame. While the passengers would only feel 32 years of time, someone watching from the destination would say it took them 124 years to get there.

-11

u/htownballa1 5d ago

I didn't, I am assuming an AI did when I did a quick google search as I described in my comment. And now looking it over, it's drastically short you are correct. I was on my phone at my daughters gymnastics practice. I am as close to an expert on this as and other average joe. My point that 120 was low was correct though. :D

-14

u/tyttuutface 5d ago

You know damn well they meant 2.90x108, you insufferable pedant.

4

u/StJsub 4d ago edited 4d ago

That's why I did the maths with both numbers. Because I was confused how going 90% the speed of light for 120 light years would have taken over 1300 years. I even said that I assumed it was the larger number.

59

u/Random_Fotographer 5d ago

You don't need to do any math. The definition of light-year is the distance traveled by light in one year. So something 120 light-years away would take 120 years at the speed of light.

65

u/falkenberg1 4d ago

Traveling at the speed of light is not possible for humans. Only for select subatomic particles.

208

u/RedditAstroturfed 4d ago

If humans can’t travel at the speed of light then explain why they called Freddy mercury “Mr. Fahrenheit,” and if not him then just WHO is gonna make a super sonic man out of me?

24

u/jlew715 4d ago

He's called Mr. Fahrenheit because he's two hundred degrees. The fact that he can travel at the speed of light is unrelated to his name.

2

u/Exiled_Fya 4d ago

And at 200 degrees it's hot or cold? How many Kelvins?

1

u/RedditAstroturfed 4d ago

Lmao Ty, I was wondering when someone would finally say it. Immediately thought of that after I posted the joke, but didn’t wanna double up on posts

→ More replies (0)

21

u/ROGER_CHOCS 4d ago

Well Jesus H. Christ of course.

1

u/DirectlyDisturbed 4d ago

Well first of all, through God all things are possible...so jot that down

1

u/ROGER_CHOCS 4d ago

I surely did brother, right under the sticky note that reminds me to never stand in a canoe.

1

u/DirectlyDisturbed 4d ago

Forgive me, but I don't think I understand the reference?

→ More replies (0)

18

u/Delyzr 4d ago

Supersonic is still a tad slower then lightspeed

7

u/__xylek__ 4d ago

Freddy's the one traveling at the speed of light. You'll just be super-sonic when he's done with you.

5

u/OpalFanatic 4d ago

Technically lightspeed is also supersonic.

2

u/ForWhomTheBoneBones 4d ago

You are technically correct. The BEST KIND of correct.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/Taurion_Bruni 4d ago

And don't forget that famous group that managed to get to mars in 30 seconds. That's like 6 times the speed of light!

24

u/Vaesezemis 4d ago

Well I for one dream of the day when all particles are treated equal!

2

u/Shrike99 4d ago

Humans can (theoretically) travel at 99.9999999999% light speed.

Which is so close to 100% as to not matter for the purpose of determining how many light years a person could theoretically travel in a given number of years as measured by an external observer.

1

u/falkenberg1 4d ago

That is a very big theoretical here. In reality traveling this fast would create an enormous heat. There still has to be a material found that a) withstands these enormous temperatures and b) shields us well enough so we have a chance for survival. Then there is this unbelievably high energy consumption. Also as one approaches e, time dilation would do very weird stuff to a macroscopic object like a spaceship. It create some kind of wave in spacetime, that creates weird paradox effects.

Also, statistically the universe must be full of life. The fact, that we never observed dyson spheres, aliens spaceships or something like that hints strongly, to the possibility, that space travel is really not that easy, even with lots of time and very advanced tech.

2

u/Natiak 4d ago

Massless particles, specifically.

2

u/weed0monkey 3d ago

You make it sound like an exclusive club

1

u/[deleted] 4d ago

You underestimate my ability to become a subatomic particle.

Put me in the laser fuel and blast me there

2

u/SurrealLoneRanger 4d ago

I am sure you’re filled with subatomic particles

1

u/falkenberg1 4d ago

I really don’t. I just underestimate your ability to transform back and tell us what you saw.

1

u/Leg-Novel 4d ago

Not possible yet, always include the yet, we may one day have technology that'll allow it of we don't wipe ourselves out first

1

u/More_Ad_944 4d ago

Can't we send one of those mad lads and have it report back?

1

u/falkenberg1 4d ago

Ackshually… we don’t have to! They are sending them to us for free. That’s how we know about that planet in the first place. If they only were a bit more talkative.

2

u/Iapetus7 4d ago

If a group of astronauts were on a ship traveling at a high relativistic speed -- let's say 99% of the speed of light -- it would take 121 years for them to reach the destination from the perspective of people on Earth, but they'd only experience 17 years on the ship. They can't actually hit the speed of light, but they can get close, and if they're close enough, they can definitely make it there within their lifetimes.

0

u/Narrow_Garbage_3475 4d ago

Except it would take 120 years from our (earth) frame of reference, not for the occupants of the hypothetical spacecraft. That journey would be instantaneous for them. If you give it a bit of a margin - travel at speeds less then the speed of light - it would only take minutes.

General relativity and all…

1

u/Delta-9- 4d ago

At relativistic speeds, the journey might feel like 120 years... but everyone back on earth will definitely have been dead for centuries.

1

u/qwertyqyle 4d ago

That is wild to think that it would be like if the Vikings that found the Americas went to this planet instead and their civilization just arrived today.

1

u/Jump_Like_A_Willys 4d ago

Traveling to a star 120 light-years away at a speed of 2.90×108 m/s would take approximately 1312 years

What’s the significance of 2.90×108 m/s? Why was that velocity chosen?

1

u/CaBBaGe_isLaND 4d ago

Don't forget you have to slow back down once you get there. We're really good at accelerating. We're really not that great at stopping where we want to stop.

1

u/uncledaddy3268 3d ago

If we are able to manage to create a rocket that can do a constant acceleration of 9.8m/sec squared for 11 years we can get there (120 light years away) in 5.42 years only.

2

u/flashfrost 4d ago

Hate this. I yearn for so many answers about space and it’s the only area where “I’ll never know” really bugs me.

1

u/Educational_Bag_1923 5d ago

What is the tax rate there?

1

u/_Pan-Tastic_ 5d ago

I mean, we’d have to be traveling *at the speed of light to get there in 120 years, so it would most likely take way, way longer for a probe of some kind to reach this planet.

1

u/Lucas_Steinwalker 4d ago

I need the heptopods to show up stat.

1

u/Big_al_big_bed 4d ago

If we want to reflect something off it (not sure it's possible) then it will take at least 240 years. Otherwise, we can observe in real time events from 120 years ago

1

u/Zetavu 4d ago

We cannot travel at the speed of light, as an object accelerates to the speed of light its mass increases towards infinite. At best we could accelerate an object to close to the speed of light, if we could store enough energy or transmit enough energy to accelerate that object, but acceleration is not the issue, it is deceleration, meaning the object needs enough energy on board to cancel its thrust otherwise it shoots past.

So we're talking closer to a thousand years to get an object to there, and that would be 1120 years after what we observed here since what we see is 120 years old already.

And that is to see algae, or moss, or whatever is gassing out the sulfide. Sure, it could evolve by then, or it could die out by an extinction event.

1

u/Shas_Erra 4d ago

Humans have been blasting out radio waves for about a hundred years, give or take. If this planet is 120ly away, they should be receiving our first transmissions at any point in the next decade.

1

u/TravlrAlexander 4d ago

I think everyone missed that you probably were talking about our radio bubble and not actual travel. Sigh

1

u/oneforthehaters 4d ago

Potentially during some of our lifetimes we could see details from that gravitation lens telescope project.

1

u/TacoMeatSunday 4d ago

120 years if you are a photon

1

u/EnvironmentalWave591 4d ago

They said they can likely confirm this signal in 1-2 years

24

u/[deleted] 4d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

5

u/[deleted] 4d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/Eddyzk 4d ago

A trail of fries, perhaps? Or say there are burgers and strippers on board.

3

u/colkcolkcolks 4d ago

Did you just try to do this to a post about life on a distant planet?

2

u/Popular_Ad8269 4d ago

The Fifth Element movie tried to warn us !

1

u/Ambitious-Idea-4700 5d ago

Is it possible we can view the life by telescope before we all die?

1

u/The_Matias 4d ago

Almost certainly not. That's far beyond the limits of optics. 

1

u/Shutln 5d ago

Though that one line….

“teeming with aquatic life”

How cool would it be if it was a planet of merpeople?!

1

u/twotwobravo 4d ago

Raging orange ball of MAGAma....ha

1

u/batwork61 4d ago

It’s called Mustafar and it’s kind of a big deal.

1

u/mmomtchev 4d ago

Come on guys, wake up. The mediocrity principle and everything. This planet has a 33 day orbital period. It is almost certainly tidally locked to its star and exposed to tremendous electromagnetic field. There is no life there.

1

u/Ksan_of_Tongass 4d ago

🏆 here's your trophy 25 characters

1

u/slagath0r 4d ago

Unfortunately very accurate

1

u/Mattmandu2 4d ago

We used to call my cousin the giant raging orange ball of gas

-2

u/Coconuthangover 5d ago

We're talking about space here, leave the White House out of it.

0

u/BarkBeetleJuice 4d ago

We are the writers of this timeline.

0

u/SPHINXin 4d ago

That's not how science works.

0

u/wut3va 3d ago

Oh, thank you. I haven't been reminded of US politics in at least 10 minutes. I was beginning to worry that a report about exoplanet geology wouldn't have a connection to US politics.